• Please login as a guest with your first and last name. The meeting does not require a password. The meeting hosts will authorize you to enter the meeting.
• We recommend you use the audio on your computer. You will be able to hear the presentation and ask questions via a chat box.

You distinguished FOIA when applied to government in sunshine, with which you agreed, with faculty correspondence. However, what is your position when a scientist at a public university is a participant in a government or intergovernmental committee? What is the basis of exempting participation in governmental committees from FOIA?

Fontaine:

I’ll pass on that.

Also:

FOIA was used by Baggerly and Coombes to identify a fraud by Duke University cancer researcher Anil Potti. Do you disagree with their use of FOIA?

YA great old scientific society whose administration has (apparently) been taken over by political/climate activists. Sigh.

AGU is a particularly odd case, in that geologists and geophysicists are often seen in the cAGW skeptic ranks — the idea that long-term climate could be regulated by *positive feedback* being spectacularly silly, to anyone with some knowledge of paleoclimates.

I guess they do have an atmospheric sciences section — which I pretty much ignored in my AGU days.

Steve might be particularly interested in the final sentence of #3 within Mann’s statement of claim.
“Every such investigation – and every replication of Dr Mann’s work – has concluded that Dr Mann’s research and conclusions were properly conducted and fairly presented”.

Obviously M&M’s published papers don’t count as (attempted) replication, and the Wegman report can safely be ignored because of poor referencing in the introduction.

Meanwhile Mann is furiously deleting all dissent on his Facebook page (presumably until he reaches an overwhelming consensus), including any comment that dares mention the dread word “discovery”. I bet Mythbusters is banned in his house because he breaks into a cold sweat at the name of the channel.